On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 08:35 +0100, bryan rasmussen wrote:
> okay well:
> "Thank GODDESS for the OO XML project, Microsoft's partially reformed
> Office XML format team, and all others who are saving us from the abject
> horror of having to contemplate XHTML as an office file format.
> "
> 
> And why are you giving thanks for these projects, because it saves us
> from the horrors of writing:
> 
> <div class="monty">
>  <span class="python"/>
> </div class"monty">
> 
> 
> are you kidding me?
> 
> If there is one thing those projects aren't involved in it's the
> creation of aesthetically pleasing, non-verbose markup formats.
> Microsoft's Office xml makes a tidied version of their html
> preferable. And while OO is complete and certainly more logical than
> Microsoft's it's not anywhere as simple to deal with as XHTML.
> Especially when one considers the number of namespaces involved.
> 
> what would your example above look like in OO, something like:
> 
> 
> <text:p text:style-name="Monty">
> <text:span text:style-name="Python"/>
> </text:p>
> 
> I'm not seeing the clear benefit.

Umm.  No.  I don't want to tunnel my markup within OOXML any more than I
want to tunnel it within XHTML.  In my preference, my example would look
like:

<monty>
  <python/>
</monty>

My point was: use the best format for the task, and don't be afraid to
invent a new format if it's others are fitting a square peg into a round
hole, but never, no never play the tunnelling-markup-in-protean GI game
of

<div class="monty">
 <span class="python"/>
</div>

*OR*

<text:p text:style-name="monty">
<text:span text:style-name="python"/>
</text:p>

Unless that's really sensibly an XHTML class or an OOXML style.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net                    http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net                   http://4Suite.org
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/